Pangloss

Gotta love that message. Do anything you want, so long as the United States wants you for leaking secrets. Murder? Bank robbery? No problem. Just be a good little boy and keep releasing secrets! And it'll play well with the anti-American side of European politics, I'm sure. No, but then I've never been to Sweden so there wouldn't even be reasonable grounds for a case. There is reasonable grounds for a case here. Whether there's sufficient evidence for a conviction is another question, I agree, but it's not one you or I can answer. And I'm not the one drawing conclusions. By stating he should fight extradition, you're calling the charges baseless. I'm not saying he's guilty, but you're saying he's innocent. That's more than you know. And I also wouldn't threaten bodily harm to other human beings if I get extradited, either. But it's not about me, I'm not the one putting myself out there as an advocate for ethical behavior. If you can single out conservative politicians for scorn when they get caught committing adultery because they take a "family values" position, then you should be willing to hold Julian Assange accountable for ethical behavior. Here's a question for Assange supporters here: If the rape charge is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, will you continue to claim conspiracy and innocence? And if you're willing at that point to condemn the man for rape, would you then also remove support for his efforts? I'm not saying withdraw support for Wikileaks, that's another matter, I'm saying would you withdraw your support for Assange in general? The reason I ask is that in the example I gave above, people frequently call for the general condemnation of any conservative politician who (for example) commits adultery. But just because they're an adulterer doesn't mean they're wrong about the importance of family life and, for example, male role models in the African-American community. So I'm watching. And I'm waiting to see how that plays out, and if he's convicted and you continue to support him I'm going to stick that in my pocket and wait for a rainy day. I have faith in conservative politicians -- I'm sure I won't have to wait long!

Fair enough on the above two posts, IMO. We'll have to see how this plays out.

Well my suggestion is for cases where there aren't any term limits currently. I'm offering an alternative to imposing them, which is a frequent public sentiment. Sorry for not being clear on that point. I agree independents are sometimes swayed by political stunts, but is that really worse than believing one party over another regardless of circumstances?

I agree. For example, the allegations are coming from more than one woman, which adds credibility to the charge. I was just looking at some of the details of who the allegations are coming from, and I have to say it would be pretty odd to suggest a conspiracy theory here. The second woman who came forward is a member of the Swedish Association of Christian Social Democrats, and hosted an Assange fundraiser. (source) Swedish socialists conspiring with foreign government officials embarrassed by leaked documents? Doesn't really sound like a good theory to me.

For a few miles, anyway. It's an interesting idea, and certainly contrary to the way things seem to be going, which is a future that looks more like couches and virtual reality.

Thanks.

For two terms of office you can vote for your preferred candidate. And you aren't forced to vote for a candidate for the opposing party at any time. And note that if your preferred candidate survives his or her third election, you could then vote for them in their fourth and fifth elections. Think of it as a "soft term limit". Good politicians -- those with broad-based appeal -- still get to stay. You're absolutely right in saying that most people vote for a party rather than a politician. What this would do is put a little more power in the hands of independent/swing voters, without tipping the scale entirely in their favor. We don't want to produce a situation where everything swings radically back and forth every couple of years either, of course. This wouldn't produce that, because of the resetting of one's 'bias flag' after one election cycle.

And probably if you were guilty, too. Yup, both innocent and guilty people do that, too. So much for justice. They're being deliberately cagey about it, saying only that if "something happens" they'll spring the password. It's an encrypted file that's already out there, actually -- available for download since July, what I read. You mean like the names of Iraqi informants they're currently redacting? Yeah, I guess they're not really that important. The public has a right to know the truth! ------- I don't think it's "radical feminism" to say that no means no, and apparently 86% of the members of this forum who have voted in this poll so far agree. Uh, he hasn't been denied any of those things. Source, or it didn't happen.

A pledge to fight any extradition charge and a threat to reveal data without redaction if arrested. I understand that those things have different interpretations, but it is a valid opinion in answer to your question, and right now this is all about opinions.

The problem with term limits is that they "kick out the baby with the bathwater". Good politicians get axed right alongside bad ones -- the choice is no longer with the people, where it belongs. What alternatives might there be? I'll start the ball rolling with this oddball idea just off the top of my head: You cannot vote for a specific party in a specific national race more than twice in a row. So if you vote for a Democrat for your House of Representatives district, and then the same Democrat two years later, you're disallowed from voting for a Democrat at the +4-year mark. You can abstain or vote in an "objection" slot, clearing your "bias category" and allowing you to vote Democrat again at +6 years. Senate slots would be handled separately from one another. In theory a "good" politician could remain in office more than two terms by appealing to voters who didn't vote for them previously. It essentially turns the tables compared with term limits, pulling the focus from the politicians and putting it back on the voters.

Nice catch, I missed that. "Train wreck" frequently comes to mind regarding Limbaugh. I'm sure he sees it differently, of course!

For what it's worth, drawing the line at 110 might decimate the Democratic Party and liberal movement in the United States. They're already outnumbered 2:1, and even if we accept the frequent argument that liberals tend to score a few points higher than conservatives, you haven't put the bar high enough for that to matter. Also, the usual motivation for an intelligence requirement is frustration over people making "stupid" electoral choices. But politics is a very lowest-common-denominator sport. In general the issues are not hard to understand, so even "stupid" people can get them if they want to. And even intelligent people can be mislead by pundits who share their ideology. So the practical upshot of an intelligence requirement is that voters would STILL appear to make "stupid" electoral choices -- the frustration factor would not be eliminated.

You're advocating nomadism as a solution to global warming?

I referenced this earlier in a thread but I don't think I ever started a full topic on it. Things are a bit slow so what the heck. This is from a Politico/George Washington University poll back in September: The question: "I am going to read you a list of some of these people. For each one, please tell me if you think this person has a positive impact or a negative impact on political debate in this country. If you do not recognize the name, just say so. Here is the first one …" The results: Positive Impact: Bill O’Reilly 49% Glenn Beck 38% Rush Limbaugh 36% Sean Hannity 35% Jon Stewart 34% Keith Olbermann 23% RachelMaddow 18% Ed Schultz 11% Negative Impact: Rush Limbaugh 52% Bill O’Reilly 32% Glenn Beck 32% Sean Hannity 25% Keith Olbermann 25% Jon Stewart 22% RachelMaddow 18% Ed Schultz 11% Never Heard Of: Rush Limbaugh 5% Bill O’Reilly 12% Glenn Beck 23% Sean Hannity 34% Jon Stewart 34% Keith Olbermann 42% RachelMaddow 55% Ed Schultz 70% Some surprises and non-surprises here for sure. No real surprise that the Fox News Channel analysts score well in positive impact, but the negative impact is interesting -- Rush Limbaugh really leaps to the fore. And it's no real surprise that everyone knows who Rush Limbaugh is, but I would have guessed that Jon Stewart would have scored higher than Bill O'Reilly. Go figure. To some extent I think you have to write off the high positive impact of the FNC pundits because of popularity (who's gonna vote against the guy they watch?). But the high negative on Limbaugh and the "never heard of" data suggests to me that people tend to give pundits the benefit of the doubt if they've never heard of them. For that reason we also have to write off the low negative impact scores for the MSNBC crowd (Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz). What do you all think? Full results can be found here. Story on the poll here.

Interesting piece in the New York Times this morning about how the cables have shed a rare light on the diplomatic community. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/world/05diplo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Well I have no problem with his lawyers asking those questions. And I have no problem with people being suspicious about the situation. That's just good sense. It's the opposition of corruption. These leaks are all about corruption. That's an integrity issue. He also stated in the Forbes interview that dave brought up that it's his primary motivation. I agree. I did drop it. I said that in post #16, and it didn't come up again until post #79. I blew it -- I thought you were saying he's too busy because he's on the lam. Way it goes sometimes. But I am glad it came up again. People here seem to want to elevate Julian Assange to pretty lofty status, and in the process they seem to be saying that rape is less important than government corruption. I think that's worth exploring. It might have "poisoned the well" early on, but looking back I'd have to say this is a pretty solid thread that covers the subject very well. I'm not going to dwell on it, but if anybody asks me a question I'll answer it. I tend to agree with you that we need to see how it plays out in court. The man is innocent until proven guilty, same as anyone else.

I was thinking of it as a moral/ethical question. Should a society have such a legal definition?

What do you think?

Okay, what do you propose would be the best way to handle it? Are you telling me you don't think it's possible for Julian Assange to get a fair trial? I don't know anything about Swedish law. Are we talking about Aruba (eternal home of Natalie Holloway) or what? BTW, I note that when Fox News Channel throws around wild speculations like the above, people get upset and complain about the damage caused by such. It's a question of integrity. When a Republican politician is caught with his pants down in a men's bathroom, people have no problem swinging the integrity bat because he took a stand on integrity. Well, Julian Assange takes a stand on integrity -- it's his main motivation; the thing he says is missing from government that needs to be restored. So I have no problem questioning whether the man has any himself. And by the way, an allegation of rape should never be seen as a "distraction". In fact I would say that it's far more important than what he's doing with his web site. And as you say, they can do the work without him. So... Sisyphus you gonna ask Cap'n whether he thinks this is a left or right issue? You don't believe that "no means no"? Or is it that you believe Julian Assange has more important things to do than answer such trivialities as whether a woman can say no to a man at any point in time? ------- I think if we had run a thread prior to this asking whether a man can be charged with rape if he refuses to stop after the condom breaks, or because he takes it off during intercourse, the overwhelming response would have been that it's rape. You know what, I think we could run that thread NOW and get an overwhelming response of agreement with the charge. Let's find out.

He could face the charges in directly if he cared to, so I think "hiding out" is a reasonable opinion. You're welcome to think otherwise. I think what you're annoyed about is that you don't think you've had an impact on my opinion, which isn't the case. Aren't you at least a little disappointed that he's sitting in England rather than going to Sweden to stand up for himself and what he believes? We wouldn't remember the name John Brown today if he'd settled for the Sunday Sermon.

dunno should vs. shouldn't, but I know he did. Maybe so, but threatening to release data if he's arrested on a RAPE charge, or if he loses an extradition fight, would be extortion and would pretty much eliminate any altruistic, saintly appeal. The extradition thing is ridiculous on its face -- it's Sweden, not Somalia. And rape is rape, and if he's guilty of that then he's no saint period. I'm not saying he's guilty, I'm saying that if he wants to be seen as a guy who acts on principles, as seems to be the case, then he should take a stand on principles, not act like a hoodlum on the lam.

Sure. But earlier you claimed he doesn't release all info, and that his releases are influenced by his bias. Are you backing away from that now? I said "even if". There are quite a few quotes in that article that talk about withholding information. If transparency were his ONLY goal, then he would release them the moment he receives them. He saves them up, and now he apparently redacts names to protect civilian informants, but in my opinion he also makes it clear in that interview that he times his releases for effect. I'm not the one calling it rape. That is the actual charge by Swedish authorities. (source) Fine, you said "he" but if you meant "they" it's fine by me. I do think that argument draws a very stark contrast between this guy and his presumably small staff and the thousands of government employees who made the same decisions over years of time and with full consideration of the facts. Granted government bureaucracies aren't exactly known for their efficiency, but presumably some of those people do know what they're doing. Like I said, he's fighting extradition. Guess he doesn't want his day in court. What do you think about that? Do you support him fighting an extradition charge, and if so, why? Er, you believe that Wikileaks should wield its information as a weapon to fight a rape accusation? Did I understand that right?

I don't think you can demonstrate that to be true. For one thing, the past three leaks have all been dumped from (presumably) the same source; he has to get these colossal leaks out of the way, and then can leak the rest. Even if he's planning to eventually release everything he has, I think you'd have a hard time making a case that he doesn't have a bone to pick with what he (frequently) labels as "government corruption". He goes on about it at great length in numerous interviews. The fact that he's running around Europe dodging a rape charge should not come at the expense of my country's national security. (And I said "dodging" for a reason. His lawyer said today that he would fight any extradition charge, and not because she thinks he'll be indicted on other charges -- she's planning to fight extradition to Sweden, because, you know, the Swedes are uncivilized and incapable of administering fair justice, I suppose (?).) Exactly. Fair enough -- I respect your opinion on it. I got a bit carried away with this earlier because it makes me mad but I wasn't trying to disrespect anyone's views. I agree with a free press and transparency as a general rule.

Well that's what the quote suggests to me. He has specific things that anger him, and he wants to do something about those things. Certainly your mileage may vary. He doesn't "release all info". And I posted a quote demonstrating bias. "Level" is a subjective term, but I read complaints on this forum on a daily basis about lack of impartiality at Fox New Channel. If you have a problem with calling that news, then in my opinion you should have a problem with calling Julian Assange impartial and objective. Of course. As you say, he chooses the order in which he releases things, adds comments of his own, and he has a stated mission of maximizing the impact of what he releases. Yup. Certainly true. Like I said earlier, the whole episode strikes me as a serious indictment of the news industry.

And if it's not scarce or expensive? We know energy can be cheap and efficient. We already know how to do this, and we're well on our way to implementing that future -- the first Chevy Volt rolled off the assembly line yesterday, just another step in the right direction. President Obama has stated a commitment to increasing nuclear energy production in this country. We're already increasing wind and solar production, and dramatically increasing efficiency across the board. Will you still oppose suburban sprawl when it doesn't cost anything and doesn't hurt anyone, and if so what will the logical, scientific basis of your opposition be?